Tuesday, October 27, 2009
1. Commanding General of U.S. Forces Afghanistan, General Stanley A. McChrystal, the Pentagon, and the Secretary of Defense, are all in agreement that we need more troops in Afghanistan if we hope to "win" the conflict there, and NATO Defense Ministers, meeting in Slovakia, expressed "broad Support" for McChrystal's request. Under the guise of "due diligence", the Procrastinator In Chief remains indecisive, as more young Americans sacrifice their lives in an undermanned, underfunded combat zone each day. Obama's failure to support McChrystal's request in a timely manner is the definition of the term "negligent homicide". Make sure you pay attention to the hoopla, though.
2. Are TARP, Cap and Trade, "Gay Rights", government bailouts, health care, stimulus packages, Cash for Clunkers, the threat of increased taxes (which only impacts those of us who actually earn an income and PAY TAXES), immigration controls, and the blatant appointment of communist/Marxist/socialist revolutionaries to positions of unlawful power within government agencies as "czars" necessary to our survival as a nation? Or could it be that they are being used by Obama as was the Roman Circus - entertainment, free bread and wine - all meant to distract us from the real issues... Obama's destruction of our Constitution and the dismantling of the USA! But keep your eyes on the hoopla and ignore the smoke and mirrors...
I could go on but I said this would be a quickie... and so it ends.
Sunday, October 25, 2009
My research into this claim is naturally inconclusive, because one can only do so much searching before becoming mentally numb... unless they are looking for facts that will support their theory. That's not my style. However, the only information that I can find that is even close to authoritative, is at the Center for Disease Control's website. All of the other information is on blogs, which doesn't necessarily make that information incorrect, just suspect. On the other hand, I can say exactly the same thing about http://www.cdc.gov website. (Isn't it a sad state of affairs when we can have so little confidence in our government being truthful with us?)
The CDC tells us that, since about 2005, they have been experimenting with a man-made hybrid of the H1N1 and H5N1 viruses. Ostensibly, this Frankenvirus was created to enable them to cope with such a thing actually occurring in nature - which doesn't sound unreasonable. It's been created under "controlled conditions" in a laboratory with rooms that are essentially biosafe compartments, and with extremely high security. The only concern is that the security is less than perfect, as are all things made by man. There is a very remote possibility that almost any experimental virus could accidentally escape from the facitlity. There is an equal chance that somebody working in a top position could intentionally remove a virus from the confines of the center for nefarious purposes. The greater possibility - in many minds - is that the government has developed such deadly viruses to use in Top Secret chemical warfare scenarios against... whom? Enemies? External enemies or domestic "enemies"? Or does the government not differentitate between the two? Is it one of those "If you ain't with us, yore agin us!" philosophies?
My only reasonable conclusion is one of, "Yes, a super 'flying pigs' flu does exist, and it is a cross between swine flu and avian flu." One of the charters of medical research is a pro-active stance of getting a jump on potentially deadly health threats, rather than a reactive position of "let's wait until it happens to begin work on fixing it. Our CDC is probably the best in the world for identifying and developing antigens to immunize against, and antibiotics to eliminate, various health threats. Unfortunately, the CDC is also an agency of the federal government... which frequently makes their motives suspect. The why of such a man-made virus is fairly clear if you trust our government (does anybody besides me remember the first atomic bomb tests at White Sands, New Mexico, in 1945? Who were the test subjects?). The big question is:
I would certainly like to be able to trust those on Capitol Hill. But, as I look around me, I see no hint of the Easter Bunny to support that desire. QUESTION AUTHORITY!
Saturday, October 24, 2009
"8. Deep cuts [by developed countries] [by all Annex I country Parties] [by all developed countries] in global emissions by Parties in accordance with their historical responsibilities, as well as the principles of equity and common but differentiated responsibilities, and realistic changes in emission patterns [will be] [are urgently] required to prevent dangerous interference with the climate system and achieve the ultimate objective of the Convention. Early and urgent action by all countries on the basis of equity and according to their common but differentiated responsibilities and respective capabilities is necessary. [A] [Further] delay by Parties [in implementing their commitments to reduce] [reducing] emissions will increase their climate debt to the developing countries and significantly constrain opportunities to achieve lower stabilization levels of greenhouse gases (GHGs) and increase the risk of more severe climate change impacts. Avoidance of damage to SIDS and LDCs as a primary benchmark for assessing the adequacy of long-term cooperative action.
9. The shared vision for long-term cooperative action recognizes the strong link between adaptation and mitigation as well as the cross-cutting role played by financing, technology transfer and capacitybuilding. Failure to implement ambitious and immediate mitigation actions by developed countries will increase the need for adaptation in developing countries and therefore for financial support. At the same time, increased financial support and technology transfer to developing countries will help these countries in their implementation of NAMAs, reducing the risk of crossing tipping points that could result in abrupt climate change."
Disregarding the several contextually unrecognized acronyms, and the legalistic wording, the bottom line appears to be that somebody in the UN seems to think that the successful nations of the world should be billed for their successes. That somehow. that success was made possible by the sacrifices of the "3rd world countries", rather than those who - through their own efforts, expense, and ingenuity - created success from ecological chaos. Therefore, the developed nations owe a debt to those who were too lazy to get up and answer the door when opportunity knocked.
Who put the UN in charge of global debt collection? If they want to start, let them begin by collecting the war debts owed to the United States by most of the developed world! At last count, only Finland and Great Britain had repaid their WWII debt to the USA. The remainder was primarily ignored or even forgiven for political reasons.
The "mainstream media" - almost to a man - publishes articles expressing serious doubts that Obama will attend the Copenhagen Climate Conference. Keep in mind however, that the mainstream media has been in Obama's pocket since he announced his candidacy for the office of President. Another effect of the aforementioned treaty would be to place the United States under a "World Government", International law, and the auspices of the World Court, which would - in any practical sense - be handing over our sovereignty to some third party!
For a change, I actually hope the mainstream left-wing media is correct in their assumptions. Obama may be spineless and incompetent, but he cannot possibly be stupid enough to expect that signing us over to a "World Government" would go unanswered by Americans.
Friday, October 23, 2009
His concern now is focused upon those of us who would neither wear the rose-colored glasses, nor adopt the necessary Pollyanna-ish attitude of "everything will be wonderful when Barack and his band of socialist/Marxist/communist/totalitarian appointees take over our government". It's probably not a great, devouring, sleep-loss type of concern, for surely he sees us as intellectually inferior, pitiful beings who just missed the opportunity to support him. I'm sure he can't ignore the fact he didn't get our votes simply because we could see through the smokescreen and ignore the mirrors... and now he must silence us.
Do we all understand that the purpose and function of government? It's "raison d'etre" is control? This is true of all governments, regardless of the type of governance...
Dictatorship - generally considered a Draconian-type of rule, a dictator usually assumes office through acts of violence, and retains that office through the same methods. The dictator lacks those bothersome restrictions provided by a constitution, and there are no laws providing for recognition of opposing points of view. A tyrant, a despot, one whose "my way or the highway" leadership style is enforced by armed thugs and an unarmed general population. Total control.
Monarchy - this one begins with the words "once upon a time", because once upon a time the "rule" of ruling was that most governments were monarchies of some sort... and the monarch initially gained control by force of arms, and was then self-designated as Emperor, King, Queen, Shah, etc.. Hereditary rule is often the defining characteristic of a monarchy. Once totalitarian in nature, many monarchies have become "constitutional monarchies", providing their subjects with the comforts of constitutional protections.
Communism - a communist state exhibits a form of government characterized by single party rule, and are generally based on either Marxist or Leninist philosophies. Additional parties may be allowed, but the communist party is always given dominance in government. In many respects the communistic form of government is not that distant from a dictatorship, and often enforces its internal will by force of arms. Total control through force of arms when deemed necessary.
Democracy - there are two types of democracy: pure and representative.
In a pure or direct democracy power rests in the assembly of all citizens who wish to participate. This assembly might pass executive actions, make laws, elect and dismiss officials, and conduct trials. A representative democracy, such as the United States should have, is founded on the principle of elected individuals representing the people (as opposed to a direct democracy).
Republic - there are Constitutional Republics and Parliamentary Republics. I will only outline the Constitutional Republic here, inasmuch as it is the type which we in the USA experience (the other type isn't necessarily bad... it's just not relevant.). In a constitutional republic the head of state and other officials are elected as representatives of the people, and (at least theoretically) must govern according to existing constitutional law that limits the governments power over the people.
There are several other forms of government, but they are generally ineffectual, and not in direct practice these days, and therefore are not really worth including... so I won't!
The government of the USA is - purportedly - a representative constitutional democratic republic. Unfortunately, one of the shortcomings of a representative democracy is that although an official is elected to represent his/her constituents, it is not required that they represent the expressed will of those constituents.
About now you're probably thinking, "Okay, so get to the point of the post title. Exactly how is this administration "fomenting revolution?" (Understand that I will probably just scratch the surface of those actions that have been taken in contravention of the constitution, since I only have access to those acts that have been made public.) I enumerate:
1. Government bailing out American financial institutions and two-thirds of the American automobile manufacturing industry. There is no Constitutional precedent for such actions. These businesses developed financial troubles because of exorbitantly high executive salaries, bonuses, lavish expense accounts, and greedy union labor. And those same mistakes continue to be made today! The government lawyers failed to draft the bailout bills in such a manner that would eliminate those improper behaviors. Was that just an oversight, or was it intentional? In a practical sense it makes no difference, because the bottom line is the bottom line. Taxpayer money was used to support private corporations, and used without appropriate restrictions on the manner of in which it could be disbursed. The first thing AIG did with our money was pay those outrageous bonuses to its executives. (Granted, had those businesses gone under, there would have been tens of thousands of jobs lost, increasing the strain on an already stretched-thin unemployment compensation program.) However, the government now has "control" of the automotive industry, and most of Wall Street, both of which are areas in which government has no business. The government is unsuccessful in conducting its own restricted business, why should we believe they can run successful enterprises within a competitive free market system? Why should they even believe that?
2. Government involvement in individual health care issues. Nowhere in the Constitution is that a power specifically granted to the federal government. Therefore it is a "States Rights" issue. The government is not allowed to compete with private industry at any level, which is why all government contracts must be bid upon by private vendors.
3. Appointment of unelected, and generally unvetted, "czars" to positions of power equal to, and in some cases superior to, the powers of established Cabinet posts and Departmental Directors. Further, in many cases these "czar" positions amount to nothing more political payback for support during the election campaign, with a slant toward also "paying back" those who did not support his bid for election. Most Obama czars are very radical, foaming-at-the-mouth, left-wing thugs, whose primary interest is one of destroying the very foundations of our once-great nation. These appointees are working hard for Obama's agenda, devising ways to circumvent the First Amendment (Freedom of religion, speech and expression), Second (Right to keep and bear arms), Fourth (Search and seizure), Tenth (Powers of the states and people) and Thirteenth Amendments (Abolition of slavery) to the Constitution. The measure of a man's true character can be taken from the people with whom he surrounds himself.
4. Attempting to silence those who would disagree with new Presidential plans and policies, by re-instituting the 1949 "Fairness Doctrine", which was essentially deemed worthless by the FCC in August of 1987, who repealed it by a 4-0 vote, and labeled it "unconstitutional", saying:
"The intrusion by government into the content of programming occasioned by the enforcement of [the Fairness Doctrine] restricts the journalistic freedom of broadcasters ... [and] actually inhibits the presentation of controversial issues of public importance to the detriment of the public and the degradation of the editorial prerogative of broadcast journalists."
This ruling was upheld by the D.C. Circuit Court of Appeals in 1989.
5. Coming soon to Obamaland - the Internet Czar! A position designed to restrict the free flow of information between citizens of the United States over the internet. Purportedly, this poition is designed to “enhance remedies for violations of intellectual property laws and for other purposes”. It’s the “other purposes” that should have people concerned.
6. There is a rumor circulating - one that is well within the realm of believability - that Obama plans to sign away the sovereignty of this great nation in Copenhagen at the impending United Nations Climate Treaty (December 7-18, 2009). If such an act is not treason, then the ensuing revolt across the country will not be considered a revolution. The only freedoms that any official can sign away are his own! If Obama opts for personal slavery under the U.N. and a "World Government", replacing U.S. law and the Constitution with the laws of the International Court then let him sign away his freedoms. (It is also being said that once the document is signed it cannot be revoked.) No man can make such a decision for another person, nor can a President make such a decision for a nation of men... without cost. The cost of MY freedom will be dear to all concerned!
These changes are, for the most part, being made without challenge from the American citizens. Have we - the "silent majority" - been silent so long as to have lost our voice entirely? Or, have we been so ignorantly complacent that we no longer care? The government is NOT YOUR DADDY! You cannot depend on the government to meet all, most, or even any of your needs in the long term. If you don't believe me, ask any Native American what trusting your government does for you.
For those of you who may be the least bit concerned about such a thing as signing us over to a foreign entity - as if we were personal property - actually happening I would suggest you contact all your elected state officials demanding that they refuse to accept such a proposal. Thirty-three states have already re-declared their "States Rights". Could secession from the union be far behind?
Thursday, October 22, 2009
Tuesday, October 20, 2009
At that time Paine was expressing his opposition to Britain's King George III's tyrannical rule over the American colonies. The wording is a bit archaic, and therefore awkward for today's reader, but tyranny is still tyranny, and revolution is still revolution. "These ARE the time that try mens souls."
In today's United States of America there is a significant political, philosophical, and moral rift between the left-wing "liberal progressives", and the right-wing "conservative traditionalists". There is a second Revolutionary War being fought as I write this blog. Thus far the skirmishes have been restricted to the mass media, the halls of Congress, and the "town hall meetings"... and the fusillades are only verbal. Retaliatory barrages from the White House consist of verbal smokescreens designed to blind and confuse the opposition forces, while simultaneously obscuring the intent of those who wish to rule rather than govern and discrediting those who are most outspoken against the rapid, insidious development of the infrastructure needed to support that rule. Citizens are governed by choice - slaves are ruled by whatever means necessary! Paine also said, "Britain, with an army to enforce her tyranny, has declared that she has a right (not only to TAX) but "to BIND us in ALL CASES WHATSOEVER" and if being bound in that manner, is not slavery, then is there not such a thing as slavery upon earth." (Two hundred thirty three years is a bit long, but I think that - were Thomas Paine alive today - he would be having a deja vu experience.)
Paine continues, delineating the difference between Tories (conservatives, sometimes called "loyalists") and Whigs (liberals, social reformists, believed in loose interpretation of the Constitution) -"Why is it that the enemy have left the New England provinces, and made these middle ones the seat of war? The answer is easy: New England is not infested with Tories, and we are. I have been tender in raising the cry against these men, and used numberless arguments to show them their danger, but it will not do to sacrifice a world either to their folly or their baseness. The period is now arrived, in which either they or we must change our sentiments, or one or both must fall. And what is a Tory? Good God! What is he? I should not be afraid to go with a hundred Whigs against a thousand Tories, were they to attempt to get into arms. Every Tory is a coward; for servile, slavish, self-interested fear is the foundation of Toryism; and a man under such influence, though he may be cruel, never can be brave."
Today's "Tories" are, politically speaking, primarily Republicans, Independents and assorted impotent-third-party followers. Mostly conservatives, they believe that the Constitution is an enduring document requiring little, if any, "interpretation". They also believe that the best government is the least government.
The "Whigs" of today are the Democrats - and their liberal following of government-dependent entitlement whores, who would sell our freedoms for a big screen TV and a couple of more government give-away programs. They believe the Constitution is a "living document" - one that should be changed as often as they change their minds... or their underwear, whichever comes first. The "blame America first" crowd, whose words and actions echo those of the Pogo Possum cartoon of 1970, wherein he proclaims "We have met the enemy and he is us."
The difference today is that the Tories are the ones who would "protect and defend the Constitution against all enemies, foreign and domestic", while the Whigs would tremble, quake and hide, while crying out for their nanny-government to protect and save them.
Our constitution - for all the wonderful rights it does promise us - it does not promise that we will be given anything other than that which we earn! It does not promise that we have a right to take that which another has earned, nor do we have a right to not be embarrassed, inconvenienced or otherwise upset by something we may experience during our appointed time on this Earth. We have the opportunity to fail in our endeavors, as well as the opportunity to succeed! How we exercise those rights and opportunities is entirely up to us.
Thomas Paine was not just a "man of his time"... he was a man for all times, and his words ring as true today as they did on December 23, 1776! Where will you be when the voices of opposition are silenced... right before the other noises begin?
Thursday, October 15, 2009
This creates a lot of simply wasted votes in any election. When we get to the fringe parties, there is not one of them that is the least bit viable, yet there is a substantial number of people who will consistently vote for a non-starter. (These are undoubtedly the same folks who would bet on a 3-legged horse to win the Preakness.) Let's look at the three main alternatives, which - combined - have never drawn 5% of the vote:
1. The Green Party: The informal US-affiliate of the leftist, environmentalist European Greens movement. Their "champions" tend to draw votes away from Democratic candidates, and their platform noticeably less than all-encompassing.
2. The Constitution Party: If nothing else, I love the name! On the other hand, I believe that every party should be focused on supporting the tenets of our Constitution, since that is the document which allowed this country to achieve world-class greatness in less than 200 years. The party is strongly pro-life, anti-gun control,anti-tax, anti-immigration, trade protectionist, "anti-New World Order," anti-United Nations, anti-gay rights, anti-welfare, and pro-school prayer. Personally, I find little in that with which I disagree, so long as school prayer was voluntary, allowing those who did not wish to participate to leave the classroom for the 60 seconds it might take, and it was anti-gay special rights.
3. The Libertarian Party: The Libertarians are neither left nor right. They believe in total individual liberty (pro-drug legalization, pro-choice, pro-gay marriage, pro-home schooling, anti-gun control, etc.) and total economic freedom (anti-welfare, anti-government regulation of businesses, anti-minimum wage, anti-income tax, pro-free trade, etc.). I see little to argue with here either. However, I believe that some government regulation of interstate commerce is necessary, as it also is in the pharmaceutical industry. Public safety first!
Let's get back to the "viable 3rd party" idea, though. What has been lacking in all of these alternative parties - thusfar - is not just a nationally recognized name... but a national name with positive recognition. We don't need social radicals, whether they be tree huggers, dope lovers, or preachers. We also don't need to be represented by those who would sell out the people of this country to the interests of big business or foreign governments. What we do need is radical Americans in our government! We need those who believe that our Constitution is the basis for all that is good and right with the USA, and that our laws, as they are currently written, provide for "equal treatment under the law". We need to be represented ONLY by those people whose concerns are first and foremost for our country and its citizens.
Sarah Palin is obviously one of those people. Why else would the left spend so much time, energy and money demonizing her? Why is Sarah David Letterman's favorite punching bag? Why do Adriana Huffington - and her cadré of communist co-conspirators - show such disdain for Sarah Palin?
She is seen as the single most likely American to burst their temporary, socialist bubble in 2012. Team her with a successful businessman - and experienced state's Chief Executive - like Mitt Romney, and the Democrats will suffer immediate bladder control problems. Sarah Palin WILL "Stand Up For Our Nation". God bless Sarah, and God bless America!
Although it sounds like an ideal worth supporting, the United Nations "Universal Declaration of Human Rights" becomes a bit disconcerting as you approach the end (29/30) of it:
- (1) Everyone has duties to the community in which alone the free and full development of his personality is possible.
- (2) In the exercise of his rights and freedoms, everyone shall be subject only to such limitations as are determined by law solely for the purpose of securing due recognition and respect for the rights and freedoms of others and of meeting the just requirements of morality, public order and the general welfare in a democratic society.
The implied possibilities are far reaching simply because they are so vague. The one that seems most obvious to me is that one would be in "violation" of this edict if one spoke out against the plans and desires of the U.N. The entire document sounds unsurpisingly socialistic and totalitarian to me.
For those few of you who may be interested, the entire Universal Declaration of Human Rights is viewable at (copy-n-paste): http://www.un.org/en/documents/udhr/
It's an interesting document to read, even though it is reminiscent of Fritz Lang's disturbing and depressing 1927 film "Metropolis".
It's possible I could be misinterpreting the entire thing... but I doubt that. The purpose of politics is control - and the purpose of international politics is total and universal control.
Tuesday, October 13, 2009
President Obama's newly confirmed Regulatory Czar defended the possibility of removing organs from terminally ill patients without their permission! Sunstein also has strongly pushed for the removal of organs from deceased individuals who did not explicitly consent to becoming organ donors. Now, as you are asking yourself "What the hell is wrong with Sunstein's mind?", you must also ask yourself, "What the hell is wrong with the person who appointed him to an unvetted position within the government?" Notice I did not say "office within the government", because it is not an official position. There is no job description for "czar", because there is NO SUCH JOB! Being appointed a "czar" is a political plum - it's nothing more than payback for a supporter's efforts toward getting Obama elected. And, if there is no job description and no real job, then it follows that there are no qualifications required to fill that "position". That's the nice thing about being made a Czar... you need NO expertise in the area of primary responsibility. But WAIT! If there's no such job, and no job description, then there cannot be any responsibilities either. Ergo, once you are made a czar you cannot fail, even if you do not succeed. The obvious defense would be one of, "I'm not responsible, because I cannot be held responsible for failing to succeed in a non-job where there are no legally defined responsibilities." I believe that excuse would work very nicely for those who are politically inclined... and morally bankrupt. Cass Sunstein is apparently one of those people who is both politically inclined and morally bankrupt!
How does he "justify" such a morally heinous position? In his 2008 book, "Nudge: Improving Decisions about Health
After defending the position, Sunstein conceded the "routine removal" approach "violates a generally accepted principle, which is that within broad limits, individuals should be able to decide what is to be done with and to their bodies." Well, DUH! Nonetheless, Sunstein did not add that the removal of organs from a living individual should be banned
Sunstein's radical views - and the absence of either morals or ethics in his personal belief system - is not atypical of Obama's czars and cabinet appointees. Fifty years ago, the USSRs communist leader, Nikita Krushchev made the statement that "We shall destroy you from within!". It appears the pieces are now being placed for exactly such a move. Our own government is rapidly developing the necessary infrastructure of control to insure the transition to a socialist form of government will be met with little resistance... if not with open arms. The government has usurped control of two-thirds of the automotive industry, all of Wall Street, and is now attempting to consume the health care industry, all the while telling gullible Americans that it is good for us. As our government moves inexorably toward a socialist-totalitarian regime the sheeple of America sit quietly as their Constitutional rights are quickly chipped away. A piece here, a concession there... how long will it take before we are quietly enslaved by our own government?
Sunday, October 11, 2009
In the first case the clear implication is that 'uninteresting times', of peace and tranquility, are more life-enhancing. The "hidden threat" theory implies that the wish is actually one of "May you experience much upheaval and trouble in your life."
While purporting to be a blessing, this is in fact a curse. It is widely reported as being of ancient Chinese origin, but is likely to be of recent and western origin, although it seems to be intended to sound Chinese, in the 'Confucious he say' mould.
The earliest citation that has yet come to light is U-Turn, a short story by Duncan Munro (one of the pen names of Eric Frank Russell), 1950:
"For centuries the Chinese used an ancient curse: 'May you live in interesting times!' It isn't a curse any more. It's a blessing."
It could be that Russell coined the phrase himself... or he may have heard it elsewhere. Nevertheless, we do live interesting times. Case in point:
1. Congress appears on the verge of some major law making, as the House yesterday passed legislation that would make it a crime to assault people because of their sexual orientation. Are we about to criminalize people's thoughts - and verbal expression of those thoughts - on one hand, while simultaneously creating a specially protected class within our "classless society"? What happened to "Equal Protection Under The Law"? I can't wait to hear the outcome of the first court challenge if this actually becomes law!2. Barack Obama, speaking on the eve of a major gay-rights march, told gay supporters on Saturday he would fight for their causes and renewed a pledge to end restrictions on their service in the U.S. military. Obama, who was referring to the policy prohibiting openly gay people from serving in the U.S. military, was seeking to shore up his support among gays and lesbians who backed him strongly during last year's presidential campaign. These first two items sound more like payback for political support, than decisions that are morally, ethically, or legally correct.
Many gay activists are frustrated Obama has not moved more quickly to carry out promises, such as overturning the "don't ask, don't tell" policy and repealing the , which bars the federal government from forcing states to recognize (the laws governing marriage fall under the purview of "States Rights" inasmuch as the 10th Amendment to the Constitution does not specifically give that right to the federal government).
3. Obama had the class to admit that he didn't deserve the Nobel Peace Prize, but not enough class to refuse it... and the $1.4 million that goes along with it, for doing absolutely nothing!. On top of that, we get to pay for his round-trip flight to Norway to accept it!
He got it for his campaign promises! They should rename it the Nobel Appeasement Prize!
4. The White House is still pushing hard for amnesty for as many as 20,000,000 illegal immigrants (I can still call them "illegal", right? It won't be a "hate crime" until it becomes law... supposedly). Even with the threat that as many as 50,000 doctors will quit medicine, the socialists continue to push. With 50,000 fewer doctors, from whom does our Congress expect the 20,000,000 extra patients to get their medical care?
Nowhere in the Constitution does it say that you have the right to never be offended, unhappy or just plain pissed off. The Constitution only guarantees opportunities... and then, only for those who are motivated enough to take advantage of those opportunities. Opportunity is the only thing one is entitled to for simply taking up space on this planet. Seeing that opportunity and taking advantage of it is up to the individual. It is not the responsibility of society to force feed it to them!
Tuesday, October 6, 2009
Here's what leapt immediately into my mind... if you can't afford the "up to $1,900" for "government approved health insurance", your ass is going to jail! Why? If you had $25,000 lying around to play with, you'd probably have bought the health insurance to begin with. Yep - you just can't buy any health insurance you want... no, no, no! It must be "government approved"!
Great... so now we have an annual increase in our prison population of (just a conservative guess) 500,000 per year. That's another half-million people that are now tax supported instead of tax paying - and they're now getting their medical treatment for free! Another clever move by our government officials...
Now throw in the loophole designed to cover the insurance companies - which goes something like this:
If they elect not to cover you for certain contractually obligated treatments... THAT'S OKAY!
The latest version of the universal health care bill stipulates that the insurance companies will not be held liable in those instances. Sweet deal for them, eh? Collect those premiums, and then tell you to 'go pack sand' when it's their turn to shell out some money. Unbelievably, this is considered acceptable behavior by our legislators. Do you think that maybe.... just maybe...the majority of our elected Dumocratic representatives are in bed with the insurance industry?
At the other end of the spectrum we have those folks in the rarefied atmosphere of multi-whatevers - multi-millions, multi-billions, etc. They can afford not to pay for health insurance, and may choose to bet on the fact that they will stay relatively healthy for a very long time. If and when they do need health care, they can easily afford to be "self-insurers". Will Bill Gates, Tiger Woods or Warren Buffett go to prison for not anteing up? Not a snowball's chance... $25,000 is lunch money to them. Therefore, the specified penalty of 1 year in jail for not having health insurance is designed to be, and is de facto punishment for being poor. Congratulations! Being poor is now a crime, and you are now a criminal!
2010 is an election year for Governors and Congressional reps. The smart thing for Americans to do is throw all the incumbents out... but, most Americans didn't do the smart thing in the last election, so why would we expect a different behavior this time? Replacing them all will serve three purposes - (1) It will be a sort of "revenge" for them screwing us over for decades, (2) it may even gain the attention of those who are chosen to replace them... a "wake-up call", if you will, and (3) it will remind them that they serve "We the People", and "We the People" are not happy with their performance.